I'll probably get a subscription when it hits Chicago, assuming I can use it with my Roku (I think that's supported). I prefer my Roku for all my tv usage anyway, and I'll be glad to support a company whose very existence proves that the copyright cartels aren't all-powerful yet.

I can't wait for this to come to Chicago! I'm either going to switch right away or use this as a bargaining chip with Comcast to get a lower rate. Right now I'm paying about $145 a month for Comcast's triple screw job and that doesn't even include a DVR, so if I can use this as leverage that's great, and if not I can just switch to it and save on my cable bill.

They're providing the means to stream hd broadcast to areas with poor reception. It is a service that costs money to operate, and thus is being charged for.

They don't recieve the signals, you do--through your very own antenna that you rented. You're also renting the space that antenna takes up, the equipment used to stream the content picked up on said antenna to you, and the bandwidth that streaming requires.

Why don't you host a streaming service for free and see how much it puts you in the hole.

What I don't understand is why the networks are so worked up about this.. They are already broadcasting it ¿no? If anything, they are getting more people who have poor reception to watch their TV right???

It has kinda launched in Atlanta. You can only sign up for the service if you have an email from Aereo. A co-worker of mine got an email yesterday saying he could now sign up for a free month trial. I wasn't on the "per-registration" list, so I still cannot (I am now). Waiting eagerly to try this out. I'd love to one day pull the 60 mile yagi-style antenna off my roof, decommission my Windows Media Center streaming to XBoxes solution I currently use to watch terrestrial TV.

Edit: I just got an email from them that I can sign up. The NSA must have let them know.

What I don't understand is why the networks are so worked up about this.. They are already broadcasting it ¿no? If anything, they are getting more people who have poor reception to watch their TV right???

They make more money from cable subscribers paying the retrans fees baked into all cable packages plus advertising than they do on advertising alone.

They don't want to lose those retrans fees, and they don't want to encourage people to cut their cable cord.

Is the WNET case on a commercial/non-commercial basis? Because as far as I know, broadcast is intended to reach anybody who cares/has the antenna to receive it...

Yes, can someone explain the PBS angle here? They are not allowed to get a retransmission fee, so I'm not sure why they are involved in the suit. While they only get minimal taxpayer funding, it does irk me that they are spending a dime of their minimal cash on this instead of producing TV.

Personally I stopped watching "live" TV years ago but I have more than a few friends that will probably sign up for this. I just hope someone makes an Aereo add-on for XBMC soon.

P.S. The signal strength of CBS is ridiculously weak in the Chicago area, last time I checked I could pick up all the other major networks from Chicago with an indoor antenna from where I live but couldn't get any signal strength at all for CBS. I have heard from a few people that even living much closer to the city is no guarantee of reception.

They don't recieve the signals, you do--through your very own antenna that you rented.

That's disingenuous at best. Try bending a paper clip into the shape of their dime sized antenna and see what you pick up. What they're really doing is running an antenna array. It's already big enough to not require any more "antennae" to be functional. That's where the network "expert" witness fell down on the job. They should claw back his fee. Sure it's a service that costs money to operate but part of the fee is pure profit. They're not saints, they're just continuing the trend to piggyback off of somebody else's efforts to make a buck.

They don't recieve the signals, you do--through your very own antenna that you rented.

That's disingenuous at best. Try bending a paper clip into the shape of their dime sized antenna and see what you pick up. What they're really doing is running an antenna array. It's already big enough to not require any more "antennae" to be functional. That's where the network "expert" witness fell down on the job. They should claw back his fee. Sure it's a service that costs money to operate but part of the fee is pure profit. They're not saints, they're just continuing the trend to piggyback off of somebody else's efforts to make a buck.

Aereo is a business, not a charity. Of course they turn a profit. Are you saying there's something wrong that?

If you own a MacBook, why do you have the need to be on The People's Court?

You're a superficial drama queen?

The People's Court is just an alternative court venue. It just means that you have a legal dispute with someone and you've decided to make a public spectacle out of it. It implies squat about any of your demographic attributes.

What I don't understand is why the networks are so worked up about this.. They are already broadcasting it ¿no? If anything, they are getting more people who have poor reception to watch their TV right???

They make more money from cable subscribers paying the retrans fees baked into all cable packages plus advertising than they do on advertising alone.

They don't want to lose those retrans fees, and they don't want to encourage people to cut their cable cord.

Consider it a widely held dirty little secret. This nonsense should never have been allowed to begin with. However now that they've gotten used to it they think of it as their birthright.

No one should ever have to pay for being a signal repeater for a commercial supported broadcast.

Besides being able to pull the basic free digital channels from the web to my laptop or phone what does this offer?

I built a homebrew antennae for my TV and pull all those basic channels, but there's really not much good on them.

2 things:

1) they may get better reception than you do, as they probably test various locations in the area to check reception for each channel with their antennae2) they also offer a dvr service [you actually rent two antennae, one to watch live TV, the other to record shows you want to time-shift].

They don't recieve the signals, you do--through your very own antenna that you rented.

That's disingenuous at best. Try bending a paper clip into the shape of their dime sized antenna and see what you pick up. What they're really doing is running an antenna array. It's already big enough to not require any more "antennae" to be functional. That's where the network "expert" witness fell down on the job. They should claw back his fee. Sure it's a service that costs money to operate but part of the fee is pure profit. They're not saints, they're just continuing the trend to piggyback off of somebody else's efforts to make a buck.

Aero is only viable in inner city highrise signal blocked areas. The rest of us just put a TV antenna up and receive TV for free.

They don't recieve the signals, you do--through your very own antenna that you rented.

That's disingenuous at best. Try bending a paper clip into the shape of their dime sized antenna and see what you pick up.

If I get to choose where I put the antenna, I can pretty much guarantee that I'll pick up anything that's being broadcast.

Quote:

What they're really doing is running an antenna array. It's already big enough to not require any more "antennae" to be functional.

Are you using the phrase 'antenna array' in the manner I'm accustomed to seeing it, i.e. referring to a an array of antennas, all of which feed a single receiver?

If this is in fact what they're doing, they're idiots, because they're lying to their customers, lying to the networks, and lying to the courts. Worse, it's a lie that's fairly easy to detect; your stated test is trivial to implement (just build a similar antenna array, put it in a similar location, and see if one antenna gets a good enough signal to do what they're doing), and their own technical records probably show whether or not the signal coming into a single antenna is good enough to drive a subscriber's feeds.